It is a truth universally acknowledged that a government, in the wake of a national security crisis—or hostage to the perceived threat of one—will pursue and in many cases enact legislation that is claimed to protect its citizens from danger, actual or otherwise. These security laws often include wide-ranging provisions that do anything but protect their citizens' rights or their safety. We have seen this happen time and time again, from the America's PATRIOT Act to Canada's C-51. The latest wave of statements by politicians after the Paris bombing implies we will see more of the same very soon.

Not keen to be left out, Pakistan has now joined the ranks of countries using “cybercrime” and terrorism to rewrite the protections for their nationals' privacy and right to free expression. In January 2015 the Government of Pakistan drafted the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB). Ostensibly the PECB was written to address new digital issues, such as cyberstalking, forgery, and online harassment. The reality is the PECB contains such broad legal provisions that that it would criminalize everyday acts of expression while undermining the right to privacy of Pakistani citizens.

PECB was introduced in the same period as the government of Pakistan established its National Action Plan, a comprehensive state-level project to combat terrorism after armed men linked to the Taliba, attacked an Army-run school in the city of Peshawar, killing 145 people, 132 of which were children. The PECB became part of the NAP: a political product intended to make control of political expression an official role of the government.

Much like its international counterparts, the PECB skews in favor of national security—loosely defined—while ignoring civil liberties. Section 34 of the PECB, for example, gives the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) powers to block objectionable content and websites, with very vague, unclear ideas as to what constitutes ‘objectionable'. If the PTA determine that it is “necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality,” then the authorities can censor it.

Do you pass messages via Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms? Under the PECB, if those messages are “obscene” or “immoral”, you may be committing a criminal offence—again, there is no clear definition of what constitutes either “obscene” or “immoral.” . Even if one does manage to think clean thoughts, sending an email or a message without the recipients permission is a criminal offence, under Section 21. A lack of clearly defined clarifications and explanations gives sweeping power to investigating agencies, with the ability to implicate, fine and imprison anyone for sending a single email without prior consent.

My own organization and many others have been pushing Pakistan's government to retract the drafted PECB, and to include amendments that incorporate civil liberties concerns. The political atmosphere has made them generally reluctant to open up the drafting process to civil society. Organizations, activists and members of Pakistan's nascent tech industry spent most of 2015 calling upon the Pakistan National Assembly's Standing Committee on Information Technology and Telecommunication to withdraw the drafted PECB for further study and amendments.

On September 17th, however, the Standing Committee decided to approve the draft and send it on its way to the National Assembly. Actually, to be more precise: copies of the draft were not given by the drafters to other committee members. When they objected, and stressed that the drafted bill could not be approved without review, they were overruled by the committee chair, who said that as he had seen the draft, that would be sufficient to pass it onto the National Assembly.

Anusha Rehman, the Minister of State for IT & Telecommunications, has defended the PECB, asserting that “safeguards have been ensured against any expected misuse.” But as it is currently written, the PECB contains little in the way of safeguards. Suggestions by civil society and lawyers have been consistently ignored.

What Pakistan needs is a a cybercrime bill that progressively and effectively balances security and civil liberties. The current PECB text, badly drafted and politically compromised, is so far away from that goal that it needs a complete overhaul.

Related Updates

EFF joined a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo opposing a proposal to deploy stronger vetting procedures against Chinese students intending to study in the United States because the procedures would threaten the free speech interests of both Chinese students and their American associates. Reuters...

A recent public statement from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission implied that those engaged in writing and publishing code might need to worry about running afoul of securities laws. In its statement about the cease and desist order against the co-founder of decentralized cryptocurrency exchange...

Governments around the world are grappling with the threat of terrorism, but their efforts aimed at curbing the dissemination of terrorist content online all too often result in censorship. Over the past five years, we’ve seen a number of governments—from the US Congress to that of France...

Update January 23, 2019: Asos contacted EFF to apologize for the cease and desist letter. Asos said the letter should never have been sent and assured us that it would take no further action against our client. We welcome the apology and hope that this case serves as an example...

We’re taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make...

With only days to go before the planned conclusion of the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market, Europe's largest and most powerful rightsholder groups — from the Premier League to the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the Association of Commercial Television in Europe — have ...

Every now and then we have to remind someone that it's not illegal for people to report facts that they dislike. This time, the offender is electric scooter rental company Bird Rides, Inc. Electric scooters have swamped a number of cities across the US, many of the scooters carelessly discarded...

One of the most important principles underpinning the Internet is that if you say something illegal, you should be held responsible for it—not the owners of the site or service where you said it. That principle has seen many threats this year—not just in federal legislation, but also in...

EFF fought FOSTA in 2018. We fought the bill in Congress and, when the president signed it into law, immediately set our sights on challenging it in court. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865) was ostensibly passed to fight sex...